Filed 5/6/15 P. v. Mills CA2/8 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS 

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT 

DIVISION EIGHT 

THE PEOPLE, 

 Plaintiff and Respondent, 

 v. 

MACK MILLS, 

 Defendant and Appellant. 

 B255881 

 (Los Angeles County 

 Super. Ct. No. MA061795) 

 APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Eric 

 P. Harmon, Judge. Affirmed. 

Carlos Ramirez, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant. 

 Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney 

General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Paul M. Roadarmel, Jr. and Nima 

Razfar, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. 

__________________________ 
2 

 Defendant and appellant Mack Mills was convicted of one count of possession of 

a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1)) and one count of possession of 

ammunition by a felon (Pen. Code, § 30305, subd. (a)(1)). Defendant admitted two prior 

prison terms within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b). He was 

sentenced to a term of four years in prison. Defendant appeals, challenging only the 

sufficiency of the evidence of possession of ammunition. We affirm. 

 “ ‘ “The proper test for determining a claim of insufficiency of evidence in 

a criminal case is whether, on the entire record, a rational trier of fact could find the 

defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citations.] On appeal, we must view the 

evidence in the light most favorable to the People and must presume in support of the 

judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence. 

[Citation.]” [Citation.]’ ” (People v. Virgo (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 788, 797.) 

 In this case, the jury was properly instructed that, as defendant conceded he had 

suffered a prior felony conviction, in order to find defendant guilty of the unlawful 

possession of ammunition, it must find that he possessed ammunition and that he knew 

he possessed the ammunition. (CALCRIM No. 2591.) The evidence of these facts was 

as follows: In August 2013, defendant was living in his sister’s garage. One night, he 

pointed a shotgun at his sister’s neighbors. The following month, defendant’s sister 

locked defendant out of the garage, but allowed him to live in an SUV she owned. 

Around this time, defendant’s sister saw him with a shotgun. More than that, defendant 

fired the shotgun when standing in his sister’s driveway. In January 2014, Los Angeles 

County Sheriff’s deputies came to defendant’s sister’s house to execute a search warrant 

to look for the shotgun. Defendant admitted to deputies that he had recently possessed a 

shotgun, but told them that it had been stolen one month ago. Deputies searched the SUV 

in which defendant lived. They found several live shotgun shells in the SUV; some were 

on the floorboard behind the driver’s seat where defendant slept, others were on the rear 

passenger seat. Defendant was arrested. Thereafter, his sister cleaned out the SUV, 

which had been messy. She found more shotgun shells scattered in the vehicle and in the 

glove compartment. 
3 

 This evidence is more than sufficient to support the conclusion that defendant 

knowingly possessed shotgun shells. Defendant lived in the SUV in which shotgun shells 

had been recovered; he admitted that he had recently possessed a shotgun; and there was 

evidence that he had fired the shotgun as well. Defendant suggests that, as he did not 

have exclusive possession or control of the SUV, the shells may have belonged to 

someone else. Yet defendant’s sister testified that she and her mother were the only other 

individuals who had access to the vehicle. The shells were not hers. She had never seen 

her mother with a shotgun or shotgun shells. The jury could reasonably conclude that, of 

the three people with access to the SUV, the one who owned the shotgun shells found 

therein was the one who lived in the vehicle and had previously fired a shotgun in the 

driveway. 

DISPOSITION

 The judgment is affirmed. 

 RUBIN, J. 

WE CONCUR: 

 BIGELOW, P. J. 

 FLIER, J.